Is 256GB SSD slower than 512GB?

[johngwheeler]

Hi,

I'm thinking of getting a base rMBP 15, and was wondering whether there is a chance that the 256GB will have worse performance than the 512GB version?

I know the 128GB SSDs in the MBA are somewhat slower, and was wondering whether the same applies to the 256 & 512 SSDs.

Also, does Apple use both Samsung & other brands in the 256GB? I had heard that they only use Samsung in the 512GB & 1TB, and that the Samsung SSD are considerably better (and faster) than other brands.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

 

[venom600]

From what I recall it isn't size related. Apple used significantly slower SSDs in the current batch of Macbook Airs, likely to save money. I don't think they did the same with the Macbook Pro though.

 

[leman]

Larger-capacity SSDs are usually faster than lower-capacity ones, because they use more storage chips that are working in parallel. But you will only really notice the difference when copying very large files on a regular basis, which is not a typical usage scenario.

 

[blooperz]

the 128 is slower than the rest of the bunch...the rest are more or less the same as far as I know

 

[yjchua95]

Hi,

I'm thinking of getting a base rMBP 15, and was wondering whether there is a chance that the 256GB will have worse performance than the 512GB version?

I know the 128GB SSDs in the MBA are somewhat slower, and was wondering whether the same applies to the 256 & 512 SSDs.

Also, does Apple use both Samsung & other brands in the 256GB? I had heard that they only use Samsung in the 512GB & 1TB, and that the Samsung SSD are considerably better (and faster) than other brands.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

128GB and 256GB are a lottery between SanDisk and Samsung. SanDisk variants are significantly slower.

For instance, the SD0256F is 150MB/s slower in writes than the SM0256F.

512GB and 1TB are Samsung only, SM0512F and SM1024F respectively.

The 1TB ones are connected in a 4-lane configuration in the rMBPs, so they get 1GB/s in reads and writes. The 1TB ones in the iMacs are connected in a 2-lane configuration, so they get the same speed as a SM0512F, as the other two lanes are occupied by the extra two USB ports on the iMac.

 

[johngwheeler]

128GB and 256GB are a lottery between SanDisk and Samsung. SanDisk variants are significantly slower.

For instance, the SD0256F is 150MB/s slower in writes than the SM0256F.

512GB and 1TB are Samsung only, SM0512F and SM1024F respectively.

The 1TB ones are connected in a 4-lane configuration in the rMBPs, so they get 1GB/s in reads and writes. The 1TB ones in the iMacs are connected in a 2-lane configuration, so they get the same speed as a SM0512F, as the other two lanes are occupied by the extra two USB ports on the iMac.

That's usual information. I see you are based in Australia - do you know whether the machines shipped to Oz tend to have more likelihood of being Samsung or SanDisk? My MBA has a Samsung, and is super fast - I wouldn't want to go backwards in performance with a rMBP.

Anyone know whether the speed difference is noticeable in normal usage (other than copying massive files)?

 

[Weaselboy]

Anyone know whether the speed difference is noticeable in normal usage (other than copying massive files)?

Unless you are sitting there running benchmark apps side by side, you will never notice the difference during routine usage. I would just get the size you really need and not sweat this.

 

[Meister]

Unless you are sitting there running benchmark apps side by side, you will never notice the difference during routine usage. I would just get the size you really need and not sweat this.

Listen to the weasel!
There is also more to ssd performancde than just the bm read/write speed test.

 

[yjchua95]

That's usual information. I see you are based in Australia - do you know whether the machines shipped to Oz tend to have more likelihood of being Samsung or SanDisk? My MBA has a Samsung, and is super fast - I wouldn't want to go backwards in performance with a rMBP.

Anyone know whether the speed difference is noticeable in normal usage (other than copying massive files)?

It's a lucky draw all over the world.

You'll see a difference if you do I/O intensive stuff like me. I edit 4K all the time, so I need every bit of performance I can get.